Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Activism
See other Activism Articles

Title: The United States Council of Censure for Constitutionality
Source: Me and Various
URL Source: [None]
Published: Oct 27, 2011
Author: Various
Post Date: 2011-10-27 14:31:40 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Constitution, Council of Censors, Council of Censure, Accountability
Views: 308
Comments: 10

In accordance with the Ninth and Tenth Amendment rights and powers vested in citizens of America with allegience to its Constitution, this is to establish The United States Council of Censure for Constitutionality with the purpose of guarding all levels of our nation's government, as well as the Military that it directs and deploys, from encroachments upon and violations of this Republic's Constitution. The United States Council of Censure for Constitutionality and each of its State branches has the authority to officially censure the breaches and breachers of our Constitution and also to apply all legal means of accountability and redress for ensuring adherance to it.

Introduction

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/censure

censure: A formal, public reprimand for an infraction or violation.

From time to time deliberative bodies are forced to take action against members whose actions or behavior runs counter to the group's acceptable standards for individual behavior. In the U.S. Congress, that action can come in the form of censure. Censure is a formal and public condemnation of an individual's transgressions. It is stronger than a simple rebuke, but not as strong as expulsion. Members of Congress who have been censured are required to give up any committee chairs they hold, but they are not removed from their elected position. Not surprisingly, however, few censured politicians are re-elected.

While censure is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the right to adopt resolutions, and a resolution to invoke censure falls into this category. The first use of censure was actually directed not at a member of Congress but at a member of George Washington's cabinet. Alexander Hamilton, Washington's treasury secretary, was accused of mishandling two congressionally authorized loans. Congress voted a censure resolution against Hamilton. The vote fell short, but it established censure as a precedent. In general, each house of Congress is responsible for invoking censure against its own members; censure against other government officials is not common, and censure against the president is rarer still.

Because censure is not specifically mentioned as the accepted form of reprimand, many censure actions against members of Congress may be listed officially as rebuke, condemnation, or denouncement. The end result, however, is the same, and to all intents and purposes these are censure measures. At the same time, each censure case is different, and those delivering censure like to have enough leeway to tailor the level of severity. Still, the prospect of an open, public rebuke by one's peers is painful even for the most thick-skinned politician.

Noteworthy Censure Cases

Among the best known censure cases in Congress were the 1811 censure of Massachusetts senator Timothy Pickering for reading confidential documents in Senate sessions and the 1844 censure of Ohio senator Benjamin Tappan for releasing a confidential document to a major newspaper. Perhaps one of the more colorful censure motions was the 1902 censure of South Carolina's two senators, Benjamin R. Tillman and John L. McLaurin. On February 22, 1902, they began fighting in the Senate chamber. Both men were censured and suspended for six days (retroactively).

Probably the most infamous censure case was the condemnation of Senator joseph r. mccarthy (R-WI) in 1954. McCarthy took the national stage at the height of the anti-Communist movement following World War II. McCarthy spent several years making claims that known Communists had infiltrated the U.S. government, and although he never offered proof of even one claim, his crusade was popular and powerful. Many Americans from all walks of life saw their lives destroyed in the early 1950s by groundless accusations of communist sympathies. His power unchecked, McCarthy became even more relentless, and in 1954 he openly attacked members of the Eisenhower administration in televised hearings. His colleagues realized they had no choice but to act. A censure committee was formed, and McCarthy as much as accused its members of being Communists. The vote to condemn McCarthy passed 65 to 22 on December 2, 1954.

Robert Torricelli (D-NJ) was found guilty in 2002 of taking illegal gifts and cash payments from a businessman and not reporting them. The businessman got help from the senator in Lobbying the government. Although Torricelli denied the charges, his colleagues found the evidence compelling enough to "severely admonish" him. While not called a "censure," this reprimand clearly had the same effect. Torricelli, who was up for reelection, saw his popularity plunge in a matter of weeks, and on September 30, 2002, he withdrew from the race.

Presidential CensureCongress rarely acts against the president with a formal reprimand. Andrew Jackson was the first president to be thus reprimanded, by the Senate in 1834, after he removed the secretary of the treasury (a responsibility that Congress believed rested with the legislature). Jackson was a Democrat, but the Senate was controlled by the rival Whig Party. Three years later, when the Democrats took control of the Senate, Jackson's censure was expunged from the records.

President John Tyler was reprimanded in 1842 by the House of Representatives, which accused him of abusing his powers. Apparently Tyler had promised representatives on several occasions that he would support certain bills, only to Veto them when they arrived at his desk. In 1848, President james k. polk was reprimanded by the House for starting the Mexican War without first obtaining Congressional approval. In 1864, President Abraham Lincoln and his secretary of war, edwin stanton, were condemned by the Senate for allowing an elected member of the House to hold commissions in the Army. The Senate voted for the reprimand 24 to 12, but it was referred to a special committee and no further action was taken.

In 1998, during the Impeachment trial of President bill clinton, several members of Congress attempted to have him censured instead, believing that while his behavior warranted rebuke it did not merit a full impeachment. The move for censure failed, and Clinton was impeached.

Further readings "Congressional Ethics: Historical Facts and Controversy." 1992. Congressional Quarterly. Washington, D.C.: CQ.

Thompson, Dennis F. 1995. Ethics in Congress: From Individual to Institutional Corruption. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

Cross-references Congress of the United States; Impeachment.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: All (#0) (Edited)

This is an edit to the phrase "all legal means" in the Preamble above to read "all lawful means".

Historical Background Information on Precedence and State Constitution Mandates for American Citizen Action Groups officially acting in the capacity of Guardianship for Constitutional Governance, with the authority to correct and discipline infractions and violators of it within the public sphere.

In the Founding Era, two States -- Pennsylvania and Vermont -- so recognized in their Constitutions, and other procedural documents in pursuance thereof, such Citizen Action Groups as authoritative and necessary to the proper administration and protection of Constitutionality as a check and balance on overreach and abuse of power. At that time, the groups were called a Council of Censors but the implication was understood as Censure. These are linked excerpts for further clarification and study of that part of our American Heritage:

http://vermontcouncilofcensors.org/history.html

“History of the Council of Censors”

“It is very usual for all public bodies, whether consisting of one or many natural ones, whose power is short of despotic, to wish for an increase of it; and to aim at that object as invariably as the needle without obstruction, points to the pole.”

In so recognizing, the 1785 Council of Censors justified their existence and the importance of the function bestowed on them by the framers of the Vermont Constitution in 1777. At the same time, the above observation foreshadows the sequence of events that led to their abolition in 1870.

Following the lead of the Pennsylvania Constitution, the framers inserted Section 44 calling for the creation of a Council of Censors, a body of 13 persons, elected by statewide election every 7th year, to serve a one year term. Their duties would be to determine, “whether the legislative and executive branches of government have performed their duty as guardians of the people; or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers, than they are entitled to by the constitution. They are also to enquire whether the public taxes have been justly laid and collected, in all parts of this Commonwealth- in what manner the public monies have been disposed of, and whether the laws have been duly executed.”

In order to accomplish these functions, the Council was given certain powers: “to send for persons, papers and records; they shall have authority to pass public censures- to order impeachments, and to recommend to the legislature the repealing such laws as appear to them to have been enacted contrary to the principles of the constitution.” Further, “the said Council of Censors shall have the power to call a Convention, to meet within two years after their sitting, if there appears to them an absolute necessity of amending any article of this constitution which may be defective- explaining such as may be thought not clearly expressed, and of adding such as are necessary for the preservation of the rights and happiness of the people…”

These four important functions were attended to by the First Council of Censors who met in 1785. Among the amendments sent forth and approved by the Constitutional Convention of 1786 was to add a 5th duty to the Censors, “to enquire whether the constitution has been preserved inviolate, in every part.”

The Council of Censors met thirteen times during the course of the next 93 years, as prescribed by the 1777 Constitution. According to “Records of the Council of Censors” by Paul S. Gillies and D. Gregory Sanford, “the Council is responsible for the repeal of the laws requiring all taxpayers to support the gospel, the meeting house, and the first settled minister; for ending the practice of adopting special acts relieving individuals of their debts or granting them immunity from prosecution for a period of years; for eliminating the practice of punishing offenders of serious crimes with maiming or branding; and for taking the legislature out of the business of holding trials and hearing appeals.” Further, the Council of Censors proposed to amend the Constitution to allow for woman’s suffrage as early as 1869.

Many of these important developments may have come about without the work of the Council of Censors, but it is clear that their office provided a needed check on both the Executive and Legislative branches as evidenced by the fact that of the at least 63 acts of legislation that the Censors found issue with, “the legislature responded to thirty-six acts by amendment or repeal of the offensive provisions.”

The Constitutional Convention that met in 1870 voted to abolish the Council of Censors. This action was the result of a political drama that unfolded over the course of 35+ years and had much more to do with jockeying for power among various potential power holders rather than an indication that the functions that the Council served were unnecessary. (continued at site)

http://enduringfreedoms.com/lj.html

The framers of the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution did not trust solely to "a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments of government" to protect the people against oppression and tyranny. They introduced a special organ of government for this purpose, called the council of censors. The censors were charged with the duties of inquiring whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate, and whether the government had performed their duties properly without assuming unconstitutional powers. They were also to inquire whether the public taxes had been justly levied and collected, in what manner they had been spent, and whether the laws had been duly executed. They were empowered to send for persons, papers, and records, to pass public censures, to order impeachments, and to recommend to the legislature the repeal of such laws as should appear to them to have been enacted contrary to the principles of the constitution. Furthermore, they were empowered to call by a two-thirds vote a constitutional convention to amend any article of the constitution which might be defective, explain such as might be thought not clearly expressed, and add such as might be necessary for the preservation of the rights and happiness of the people. Learn More (at the site. Note that only they could make the qualified call for a Constitutional Convention and not whimsical complainants or subversives.)

Edited to correct links.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-10-27   17:00:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: All (#1)

This is an excerpt of The Federalist No. 48 by James Madison, aka Father of the Constitution. Friday, February 1, 1788. New York Packet:

An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among several bodies of magistracy, as that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being effectually checked and restrained by the others. For this reason, that convention which passed the ordinance of government, laid its foundation on this basis, that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments should be separate and distinct, so that no person should exercise the powers of more than one of them at the same time. But no barrier was provided between these several powers. The judiciary and the executive members were left dependent on the legislative for their subsistence in office, and some of them for their continuance in it. If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made; nor, if made, can be effectual; because in that case they may put their proceedings into the form of acts of Assembly, which will render them obligatory on the other branches. They have accordingly, in many instances, decided rights which should have been left to judiciary controversy, and the direction of the executive, during the whole time of their session, is becoming habitual and familiar."

The other State which I shall take for an example is Pennsylvania; and the other authority, the Council of Censors, which assembled in the years 1783 and 1784. A part of the duty of this body, as marked out by the constitution, was "to inquire whether the constitution had been preserved inviolate in every part; and whether the legislative and executive branches of government had performed their duty as guardians of the people, or assumed to themselves, or exercised, other or greater powers than they are entitled to by the constitution. " In the execution of this trust, the council were necessarily led to a comparison of both the legislative and executive proceedings, with the constitutional powers of these departments; and from the facts enumerated, and to the truth of most of which both sides in the council subscribed, it appears that the constitution had been flagrantly violated by the legislature in a variety of important instances.

A great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people; although this is one of the precautions chiefly relied on by the constitution against improper acts of legislature.

The constitutional trial by jury had been violated, and powers assumed which had not been delegated by the constitution.

Executive powers had been usurped.

The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination.

Those who wish to see the several particulars falling under each of these heads, may consult the journals of the council, which are in print. Some of them, it will be found, may be imputable to peculiar circumstances connected with the war; but the greater part of them may be considered as the spontaneous shoots of an ill-constituted government.

It appears, also, that the executive department had not been innocent of frequent breaches of the constitution. There are three observations, however, which ought to be made on this head: first, a great proportion of the instances were either immediately produced by the necessities of the war, or recommended by Congress or the commander-in-chief; second, in most of the other instances, they conformed either to the declared or the known sentiments of the legislative department; third, the executive department of Pennsylvania is distinguished from that of the other States by the number of members composing it. In this respect, it has as much affinity to a legislative assembly as to an executive council. And being at once exempt from the restraint of an individual responsibility for the acts of the body, and deriving confidence from mutual example and joint influence, unauthorized measures would, of course, be more freely hazarded, than where the executive department is administered by a single hand, or by a few hands.

The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.

PUBLIUS

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-10-27   17:29:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: All (#2)

This abbreviated example shows one option of recourse by Censure that could be implemented by We the People:

Declaration of Nonauthority

We the People, in Congress [My note: or "in Council for Constitutionality"] assembled, and sitting as an informal court of review on numerous petitions for what are essentially writs of quo warranto, and other prerogative writs, find that the following demands for proof of authority were duly submitted, that proof of authority was refused, and that the official courts failed to properly rule on such refusal, to find that the officials petitioned lacked authority. Therefore, we declare those courts derelict in their duty, and that such officials lack authority for the actions challenged; therefore, we call on all loyal Americans to refuse to cooperate in any way with such illegitimate actions, regardless of personal consequences. Specifically, we find United States officials have no authority:

1. We the People v. United States, Case No. 04CV01211

To exercise any authority that has been challenged by the functional equivalent of a writ of quo warranto without proving that authority by a logical chain of derivation from provisions of the Constitution;

(See continuation of the list at site)

2. We the People v. United States, Case No. 07-681

To take any warlike action under War Powers Resolution 50 U.S.C. §1541 et.seq., which is not equivalent to, and does not satisfy, the constitutional requirement for a congressional declaration of war, or letters of marque and reprisal;

To have invaded, without a congressional declaration of war, the nations of Kuwait and Iraq in 1990-91 and Iraq in 2003;

To have engaged in military hostilities, without a congressional declaration of war, in and about the nations of the former Yugoslavia in the 1999 timeframe; To have engaged in military hostilities, without a congressional declaration of war, in and about the nation of Afghanistan beginning in 2001 and continuing to this day;

3. We the People v. United States, (Recent)

To prosecute or punish any person under the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended, or under any other acts which restrict who may possess firearms or under what conditions, encoded in 18 USC Chapters 39, 40, and 44, as an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms;

To otherwise infringe in any way on the right of individuals to acquire arms, ammunition, and the tools of militia, through regulation or taxation, other than to enhance their effectiveness as militia;

4. We the People v. United States, (Recent)

To make federal reserve notes legal tender on state territory;

To confer a privileged status on a quasi-private "Federal Reserve System" to regulate the money supply and collect interest on the debts of the United States;

(See continuation of the listings at site)

We further find that many if not most such actions without authority by executive officials or agents constitute criminal violations, specifically of 18 USC 241 and 241.

We call upon all American citizens to affirm, individually and in groups, this Declaration, and to convey your affirmations to decisionmakers and the media.

[Signatures]

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-10-27   18:10:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: GreyLmist (#0)

I have no idea who this "Council of Censure" is, but evidently they think they can have a monopoly on criticizing the government - and maybe make the rest of us pay dues to them when we want to criticize the govt.

And, by the way, pretending to be some sort of official agency is a federal offense.

Shoonra  posted on  2011-10-28   7:31:41 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Shoonra (#4) (Edited)

I have no idea who this "Council of Censure" is, but evidently they think they can have a monopoly on criticizing the government - and maybe make the rest of us pay dues to them when we want to criticize the govt.

Don't be silly. This isn't a First Amendment censorship issue. It's about Protectionism of our Constitution, which is the government of our Republic. Criticize it if you want to. Move against it as an officeholder or whatnot and that calls for countermeasures of Censure such as: a Declaration of Non- Authority (for example), suspension or removal from office perhaps, legal actions, recompense...

And, by the way, pretending to be some sort of official agency is a federal offense.

Go tell that to Federal Express and the Federal Reserve Inc's., shoonra. Read the opening words of the Preamble to the Constitution. This is the order of hierarchy:

1. We the People: of the United States and its Constitution, as the Founders' Posterity having allegience to the Republic which they established for us in accordance with the Constitition.

1-A. The Militia of our States: a subset of We the People as noted above. Needs no permission whatsoever from any other branches of our government to guard and protect us and uphold our Constitution.

2. The Legislative Branch: a subset of We the Constitutionalist People of the United States of America, as noted above -- i.e. Law Offices of the US of A and not a UN soapbox for every worldview-whimsical who wants to act like it's their personal stomping ground.

2-A. The Legislative Branch (comprised of We the People as noted above) can, if necessary, call forth the Militia (also comprised of We the People as noted above) within the parameters of Constitutional dutites and enforcement but is to provide for their needs when they are employed in the service of the United States generally.

2-B. The Legislative Branch (comprised of We the People as noted above) can, if necessary and upon proper Declaration of War or Letters of Marque issuance for actions short of War, use our Military forces (also comprised of We the People as noted above) within the parameters of Constitutional duties and enforcement but is to provide for their needs as Federal employees. They are not to be used as World Police.

4. The Executive Branch: Office of the Presidency and sub-offices thereof (is to be comprised at all levels of We the People as noted above). Chief Law Enforcement Officer of Constitutional legislation only (not Dictator or Monarch or "Leader of the Free World"). Commander in Chief of our Armed Services and of our Militia when they are called into the service of the United States generally by Congress, not the President. Is not to hold them hostage to do the bidding of the Executive, et al., but is to take care in directing them responsibly in their deployments in accordance with the Constitution. The Presidency is subordinate to Congress in War Powers, Impeachement measures, Appointments requiring their approval, and so on.

5. The Judicial Branch (comprised of We the People as noted above at all levels): Legal Consultants and Advisors for the United States of America. Is not a subdivision of Congress and cannot legislate from the bench.

6. Councils of Censure (comprised of We the People as noted above): Have the authority at the Federal level and all levels of the States, as the Posterity of our Founders, to review breaches and violations of our Constitution and also to correct them by lawful means whenever any branches or all of the branches outlined here and within the Constitution of the United States (including Constitutions of the States thereof) are in error and fail or refuse to promptly correct themselves. Review this thread and Amendments 9 and 10 for referencing as needed.

Edited for spelling, punctuation, spacing, last sentence of paragraph 1, and for wording of #6.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-11-12   1:25:16 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: Shoonra (#4)

This linked site is a working example of a National Council of Censors platform which uses the older wording of Censors in its title but means Censure.

"It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error." (U.S, Supreme Court in American Communications Association v Douds, 339 U.S. 382, 442)

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-11-12   2:21:02 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: GreyLmist, 4 (#6)

Strong stuff - I'd never seen this. Thanks much.

Break the Conventions - Keep the Commandments - G.K.Chesterson

Lod  posted on  2011-11-23   20:08:42 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#8. To: Lod (#7)

You're very welcome. Thanks for reviewing it.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2011-11-23   20:47:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: GreyLmist, *Humor-Weird News* (#5)

(Shoonra) And, by the way, pretending to be some sort of official agency is a federal offense.

(GreyLmist) Go tell that to Federal Express and the Federal Reserve Inc's., shoonra.


"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry

wudidiz  posted on  2012-03-14   8:17:35 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#10. To: wudidiz, Shoonra (#9)

I've waited long enough for Shoonra to report back on that assignment. I'm just going to mark it down as Incomplete.

-------

"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC

GreyLmist  posted on  2012-03-14   13:20:20 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest